Yes, I think it's unfortunate that you decided to muddle the discussion by introducing the discussion of LLMs in your previous comment, and by conflating them with AGI, in the sense of strongly superhuman AI, which is OpenAI's objective. I worked pretty hard to unmuddle them in my comment.
The questions you are bringing up about the possible limits of the LLM approach are interesting open research questions, and while I really doubt your implicit claim to have resolved them, they are ultimately irrelevant to the topic at hand, which, I will remind you, is the astounding novelty of the situation where
> many companies operating in the public eye are basically stating "We are creating a digital god, an instrument more powerful than any nuclear weapon" and raising billions to do it, and nobody bats an eye...
Note that there is nothing about LLMs in this proposition, and the particular company we're implicitly most focused on—OpenAI—has already developed a number of well-known models that aren't LLMs and plans to keep doing so.
The questions you are bringing up about the possible limits of the LLM approach are interesting open research questions, and while I really doubt your implicit claim to have resolved them, they are ultimately irrelevant to the topic at hand, which, I will remind you, is the astounding novelty of the situation where
> many companies operating in the public eye are basically stating "We are creating a digital god, an instrument more powerful than any nuclear weapon" and raising billions to do it, and nobody bats an eye...
Note that there is nothing about LLMs in this proposition, and the particular company we're implicitly most focused on—OpenAI—has already developed a number of well-known models that aren't LLMs and plans to keep doing so.